Diamond Rubber Company of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Company’s Empirical Analysis
220 U.S. 428 · 1911
Citation profile
623 federal appellate · 340 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,417 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950), Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co. (1944)
623 federal appellate · 340 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedConsolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Diamond Rubber Co. of New York (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Railway Company v. Sayles · Kessler v. Eldred · Eames v. Andrews · Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Rubber Tire Wheel Co.
Cited together with Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Loom Company v. Higgins · Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1,417 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Knowledge after the event is always easy, and problems once solved present no difficulties, indeed, may be represented as never having had any, and expert witnesses may be brought forward to show that the new thing which seemed to have eluded the search of the world was always ready at hand and easy to be seen by a merely skillful attention. But the law has other tests of the invention than subtle conjectures of what might have been seen and yet was not. It regards a change as evidence of novelty, the acceptance and utility of change as a further evidence, even as demonstration.””
32 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(I)f (a patentee) has added a new and valuable article to the world's utilities he is entitled to the rank and protection of an inventor. And how can it take from his merit that he may not know all of the forces which he has brought into operation? It is certainly not necessary that he understand or be able to state the scientific principles underlying his invention, and it is immaterial whether he can stand a successful examination as to the speculative ideas involved. . . . He must, indeed, make such disclosure and description of his invention that it may be put into practice. . . . This satisfies the law, which only requires as a condition of its protection that the world be given something new and that the world be taught how to use it.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It gives the tribute of its praise to the prior art; it gives the [invention] the tribute of its imitation, as others have done.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.